Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

It is interesting that everybody just repeats this. The source of the "confirmation" is Ella Polyakova, which is a chairman of organization Soldier's Mothers and opposition politician. She has an advisory role on human rights. This is a person with an axe to grind at the very least. It is hard to take her as some official spokesman of the Russian government and definitely not someone in-the-know about the situation. All the articles make her seem like some member of Putin's inner circle of advisors.

The amount of disinformation that is coming from Russia, but also Ukraine and the NATO command is vast and it is very hard to sift through it to get to the truth. Very likely Russian troops are somehow involved in the conflict, but trust me that if Russia started an invasion of Ukraine, they could take Kiev the next day. So Occam's razor applied, this is not an invasion.

Given that Ukraine actually captured a group of Russian paratroopers, showed them on TV, and the Russians admitted they were in fact Russian troops, yes, I kind of think there are Russian troops in the Ukraine.

There are also Ukrainian troops in Russia. In far bigger numbers as well. Last time there were 400 soldiers who strayed to Russia, now there is a report of about 1000 soldiers encircled by the separatists that might be seeking refuge in Russia after being abandoned by their commanders. It is not as simple as some news outlets let you believe. Most of the headlines are sensationalist anyway, that's how you sell newspaper. There is also 300 US active military "advisors" embedded with the Ukrainian military, helping with tactics, logistics and strategy. But I don't see you being upset over that.

I am mostly upset that nobody is talking, they could have had a week long cease fire couple months ago to at least talk through what each side wants, but Ukraine pushes for a complete victory in the east. Maybe that is a good strategy, maybe not, but US is the only one benefiting right now. Ukraine, EU and Russia are all losers in this conflict. And I am also upset with the rhetoric of people that drive us into a military conflict with Russia. It is almost as if everyone forgot the 2000 nuclear warheads aimed at pretty much the entire world. But let's say they won't use them. Won't they maybe sell them? Or sell the technology to make them? What is their incentive not to?

I worked with Ukrainians, and i worked with Russian, and we worked all together. Most of the normal people on both sides have no problem friends to each other, or being married with each other.

I am deeply worried about some polititians (on both sides) being more conderned about economics than about saving the lives of many civilians, and soldiers. Russia could have stopped a long time destabilizing the region, and the West made some big mistakes about 9 months ago in not giving Russia guarantees for their safety and constructive influence, and instead of insiting in finally "winning" the cold war.

The amount of disinformation that is coming from Russia, but also Ukraine and the NATO command is vast and it is very hard to sift through it to get to the truth. Very likely Russian troops are somehow involved in the conflict, but trust me that if Russia started an invasion of Ukraine, they could take Kiev the next day. So Occam's razor applied, this is not an invasion.

if Russia started an invasion of Ukraine, and wanted to provoke immediate international retaliation they could take Kiev the next day. FTFY.

Im not 100% clear why we wouldnt want to get involved here, if ever there were a time to get involved.

Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed. At the same time, having a superpower like Russia going into full imperialism mode is good for noone but Russia. A tepid response like the one theyve been given will only encourage further aggression.

There is a saying, attributed to Napoleon, 'never get in the way of your enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself'. Putin may score points at home by annexing the Crimea and invading Ukraine. Internationally, however, Russia moving towards becoming a pariah state, like Iran, North Korea, or Libya under Qaddafi. He's invaded and annexed part of his neighbor, shot down a civilian airliner, imprisoned political opponents, clamped down on free speech and murdered journalists, criminalized having a different sexual orientation. If the long-term goal is to politically isolate Russia, to help contain Russian influence like during the Cold War, well, Putin is doing a fantastic job of it.

War has been called "politics by other means". Putin has launched this war because he is desperate not to let the Ukraine fall into the Western political sphere- probably the best analogy would be the way the U.S. got defensive about having communist governments in Cuba and Central America. At best, he'll manage to carve off the eastern edge of Ukraine to create some tiny, pro-Russian buffer states. In the process of gaining this territory, Russia will isolate itself and its political sphere of influence will shrink. Putin will never give up power, and the West will never trust him again, so we could be looking at another 10-25 years of this sort of behavior, before eventually someone succeeds him and tries to normalize relations with the West.

Putin may score points at home by annexing the Crimea and invading Ukraine. Internationally, however, Russia moving towards becoming a pariah state, like Iran, North Korea, or Libya under Qaddafi.

Maybe, but Russia would be the world's largest 'pariah' state - too big to ignore. People will acquiesce, just like they did the Chinese conquest of Tibet. Not just that, there are major countries in Russia's corner, including China and India. If Russia has those 2 trading partners, what else do they need?

Putin is going to grab Ukraine (or as much as he can), because he's willing to put boots on the ground and the Western World isn't. He's correctly surmised that the West has overextended itself a wee bit (both in terms of materials and willpower and moral authority). After all, he's "liberating", ain't he? Isn't that what the US did in Iraq? And Afghanistan? He's even invited by the locals!

Ukraine likely doesn't have the forces to stop them (if they did, they woulda kept them out of Crimea). The western world doesn't care enough to put skin in the game. As long as he doesn't heat the water too fast, I'd bet on Putin getting his Ukrainian lobster dinner.

I don't know how Russia, you know, the big one, reacts if the US decided to support (and possibly occup... I mean liberate) a country right at its border.

I mean, how'd you feel if Russia took over Mexico?

I'd be quite careful how to react to that. Putin doesn't have as much leeway to do what he pleases as it seems. Russia likes big, strong, tough men at the top. Men who give in have a pretty hard time to remain in power.

It would actually be easier than Georgia, I suspect. The big problem that Ukraine has is that, like most other ex-Soviet states, it let its military deteriorate in the 90s to the point of utter inefficiency (did you see the photos a govt guy just posted of what their BTR reserves look like, in response to a Facebook question as to why volunteers aren't getting vehicles?), but unlike them, it didn't get a wake-up call until now, like Russia itself got in Chechnya, or Georgia got in Ossetia and Abkhazia. So now they have to recover and learn very quickly. There's a lot of enthusiasm on the troop level, but logistics is in shambles, their officers seem to have a poor grasp of tactics (like e.g. ordering an artillery unit to stay in one place while firing... needless to say, they get fucked by counter-battery fire, and the reason why we know about this story is because there were survivors), and their generals don't understand that grand plans they make bear little in common with reality. This, again, is a lot like Russia was during the first conflict in Chechnya, but that was an easier opponent, and consequences of defeat were not as far reaching.

What's going for Ukraine is that their population reserves are bigger, and they retained a larger arsenal as part of the Soviet legacy. Also, the fact that a significant part of Soviet military industry was in Ukraine, so they have experience manufacturing the things they need.

Either way, I think that the only reason why they can still fight effectively, even with large casualties, is because Russian involvement is still undercover. It became noticeably less so over the last week, what with armored columns openly crossing the border (but still with removed flags) etc, and notice how the situation that was so dire for the rebels suddenly became so dire for the Ukrainian troops. If Russia were to go all in, openly, throwing all units that it already converged at the border, I don't think Ukraine stands a chance without outside help.

How long can Russia occupy Ukraine, now, is a different question. That area has a long history of guerrilla warfare against occupiers of all kinds, including Soviets back in WW2 days. And there's a strong resolve to resist among the populace today. An occupying force might win in the field, but find itself facing bullets from every window in the cities at night.

This isnt difficult. Ask Kiev if they would like 1000 US troops to assist at a military base near the fighting. What, do you suppose, would happen if Russia then attacked an area where American troops were?

You know how you deal with a playground bully? You stand up to his crap, get people behind you, and call his bluff.

So USA isn't a bully? You do realize US started the whole deal in Ukraine right?

I'm asking you this as a US citizen for 15 years, who has lived in US for 20 years, served in US army for 7.5 years, will almost certainly live out the rest of my life here (as in very much invested in US and its future), but I was born and grew up until 13 in Ukraine. Thing is I damn well want the best for United States and Ukraine. At the same time I realize very well who started this conflict, and know that Ukraine will be much better off with Russia. Putin is doing everything 100% right (this article about invasion is total BS by the way). He is staying out of direct conflict, while supporting the rebels. US has done this countless times, difference is there is an overwhelming support for Putin in Ukraine (most Ukrainians are literally Russians in every way that matters), so he will succeed. Country will split in half, more likely majority of it will be Russian. The rest will join EU and will unfortunately suffer as EU is in a really bad position themselves and can't afford to help.

You don't hear these things because US/EU/Kiev controlled press suppresses a lot of information, and Kiev government is suppressing the people (election were completely bogus). People that voice disagreement against Ukrainian government are thrown in jail, beaten, sometimes burned alive, forced to go to front lines to die without support. Maidan 3.0 is beginning.

I have a lot of relatives and friends in Ukraine. I read news from all sides. I understand the bond between Russians and Ukrainians, there simply is nothing like that in America. It's a hell of a lot closer than US and Britan/Canada/Australia, but you don't have any idea what that's like. You also don't know what it's like to have your countrymen carrying portraits and flags of someone who greeted Nazi's as friends. Might want to look up Lviv Pogrom 1941 where the people you support killed 4,000 jews in one day to celebrate Hitler. They did way more than that later. I also know very well how Americans view anything outside of their own city/state, I served with them, I was one of them in Iraq for 3 combat tours 1 year each.

And on the flipside, my neighbor is Ukrainian. Ukrainian Independence Day was this past weekend, and they invited me over for a few drinks. (Which, as a side, do not drink with Ukrainians on Ukrainian Independence Day if you like a functional liver). None of them speak English terribly well, but they made it abundantly clear it's bad over there right now. They've still got family & friends there, and they're naturally worried.

Several shots later, they taught me the phrases, "Fuck Putin" and "Fuck Russia" in Ukrainian. Fans of Russia, they are not.

Some times non-invasive therapies are indicated, but quite often the best course is surgery. Sadly, what we have in the White House is a "herbal remedies" charlatan...

Right, as opposed to the previous guy, who went into Iraq to settle his daddy's score, and based on "intelligence" which was provably NOT true at the time? The overly simplistic moron who said "you're either with us or with the terrorists" when there was no connection between the war and what they said it was for? The one whose administration said they'd pay for that little jaunt with all the oil money you'd be getting? The one who started the sledge-hammer of an agency which is DHS?

Because, the yellow cake thing was a lie, there were no WMDs, they weren't sponsoring terrorism, and had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

You mean that kind of "surgery", where you blunder around with pointy objects in the dark making a lot of noise and hoping everyone swoons over your manliness?

Because, really the chimpanzee who was Bush the Second didn't exactly do anything with surgical precision. He wasn't even in the right country until far too late, and the country you did invade is falling into civil war.

Whatever you blame Bush for, the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq are squarely Obama's doing.

Bullshit. Obama might not have handled things terribly well, but Bush bears most of the blame here. Let's look at the first issue: former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki pursued a divisive, sectarian agenda that caused the country to split along religious lines. Could Obama have done more to influence Maliki to be inclusive? Maybe. But who created him in the first place? That's right- George W. Bush. Maliki was brought to power in 2006 with extensive US involvement and support. If Maliki's politics are to blame, then Bush is ultimately the one to blame for Maliki.

Second Issue: withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Damn you, Obama! Except wait a minute, who was it who approved a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that called for all U.S. troops to leave in 2009... hm, it'll come to me... oh, that's right, it was BUSH! Maybe Obama could have pushed harder to keep a residual force, but he wasn't able to get an agreement. Turns out, he couldn't negotiate with Maliki. The guy, you will recall, put in power by the Bush administration.

Third Issue. These ISIS guys. Where do they come from? They're pretty badass, they act more like an occupying army than a terrorist organization. Turns out, there's a reason for that- they include a whole bunch of former Iraqi Army officers, who went to military academy and everything. Iraqi army officers who joined the insurgency after the Iraqi Army was disbanded by, wait for it... George W. Bush. Disbanding the Iraqi army was arguably the stupidest move of all, possibly even stupider than invading. It took the only force capable of holding the country together, destroyed it, and then then turned a bunch of disgruntled, unemployed soldiers and military officers loose to create an insurgency.

Fourth, Iraq invasion. It should be pretty obvious where the blame for that lies.

I think there are enough examples in history to prove that appeasement does not work. Russia Ascendant is not the doomsday scenario we may have believed it was during the Cold War, but no country, not even a UN Security Council veto power, gets to unilaterally occupy another member of the UN.

The current Ukrainian government was not elected in a nationwide vote, and one of their first acts was to ban the use of Russian (the first language of half the population) as an official language.

Neither of those are true. The current Ukrainian government was elected in a nation wide vote (minus Crimea and potentially the rebelling areas). The current President replaced the interim one. The banning of Russian never happened. It was PROPOSED, and it never was passed. I don't think it even was put to a vote.

The only reason those populations were intentionally alienated is because their main source of news is Russian news, which has been feeding them the propaganda you're referencing.

It is understandable that they want either autonomy or secession, and I don't see why that is wrong.

The reason it is wrong is because those people are part of a country. The WHOLE country decides if a part should be separated from them. Further the Ukrainian constitution mandates that such referendums must be done nationally. So per the Ukrainian constitution it's unconstitutional.

The current Ukrainian government was elected in a nation wide vote (minus Crimea and potentially the rebelling areas).

Right. Which was about a third of the country, and precisely the people that would have voted the other way.

The reason it is wrong is because those people are part of a country. The WHOLE country decides if a part should be separated from them.

So America should get involved in a war over the principle that the sanctity of borders is more important than the self-determination of people? Plenty of arguments can be made about which side is right or wrong. But the bottom line is that there is a huge gray area. Even if the Ukrainian government prevails militarily, the eastern regions will be nearly ungovernable, and the situation will fester for years if not decades. A negotiated end to the war would be in everyone's best interest, and that will required concessions by both sides. The people in the west shouting "no appeasement" should keep in mind that many people in Russia are shouting the same thing about "appeasement" of the West. If we really insist on taking a hard no-compromise stance, we will probably lose. The Russians have both the troops on the ground and the support of their people. We have neither.

Putin is pushing, because the West is pulling back. Some blame can be laid at Obama's feet, though I don't think anyone would want a President who went around making threats of open warfare. A lot of blame can be laid at the EU's feet, for inspiring the revolution, and then getting weak-kneed when the Russians became belligerent.

One thing is awfully clear. If you're an Eastern European nation with even a handful of ethnic Russians in your territory, you have a serious problem.

It is the tepid response given to atrocities elsewhere that has sent the message that Putin can do this with impunity. He knows he can get away with this and only risk getting Russian assets frozen world wide. That might tick off the rich guys some, but Putin isn't really elected by them anyway.

Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed.

The only "aid" that the US is obligated to provide Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances [wikisource.org] is to seek UN Security Council action in the event that Ukraine is attacked (or threatened) with nuclear weapons.

The agreement is a one page document written in plain language. It's hard to imagine anyone who's read it would interpret it as you do.

Would Russia invade if Ukraine still had their nukes? Will any other nuclear country disarm in the future given this scenario?In the end, a treaty is just words on paper. Russia clearly isn't honoring the treaty so it goes to line 6:

"The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments."

Im not 100% clear why we wouldnt want to get involved here, if ever there were a time to get involved.

Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed. At the same time, having a superpower like Russia going into full imperialism mode is good for noone but Russia. A tepid response like the one theyve been given will only encourage further aggression.

Assuming that you are implying American boots/bombs on the ground in the Ukraine, are you crazy? I mean seriously. Are you? There is in my opinion a dangerous detachment from reality in some circles of American political discussion about confronting Russia. Perhaps you may feel my language is inflamatory. But I get kind of disturbed when so many people, including those in power, put forward actions which would likely lead to thermonuclear war.

Looking back at history, there has never been a shooting war between the Soviet Union and the US. Never. The Cold War? It was always fought between proxies of the great powers. We would sell arms to pro-US or anti-Soviet interests (like in 1980's Afghanistan), or we would directly confront pro-Soviet interests (like in Vietnam). We came close to a shooting war with the Soviets more than once (the Bay of Pigs in Cuba). But such a war never happened, because those in power knew that such a war would inevitably decay into a thermonuclear war that would likely end western civilization with the press of a button.

The proper response to this is to strengthen military forces in new NATO member states surrounding Russia, including US boots on the ground. This will make a clear line that Russia knows it cannot cross without provoking all-out war. Unfortunately Ukraine is not part of NATO. We might be able to sell arms to Ukraine, but there are risks and limitations to this. What must be made clear to Russia is that if it enters Ukraine, it will face profound economic isolation. If it goes further it must be clear that it will result in WWIII. Thus we end in a stalemate. Not unlike the Cold War.

So exactly what would us giving troops to the UN to go against the Russian invasion do. The security council must vote. Russia is a permanent member of that council with Veto power.

So. Even if we are willing to go that route... It is a pointless way to go.

Add to that that the UN is just everything that is wrong with government multiplied by 10 and with no ability to make any real decisions. Hell the UN gave advanced computers to a country that the UN had decided should not have them. The UN can not even

Unfortunately for those living there a lack of control of Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, and it always has been. This is Putin and his faction basically saying "Bring it Europe/US. What are you going to do?" They're gambling that Ukrainian sovereignty is less important to the US and Europe than getting in a shooting war with Russia, and quite frankly they're probably right.

I'd love to see the transcript of their next call.Obama: "Putin, but why?"Putin: "Because fuck you, that's why."

But I won't, so I'll have to comfort myself with some classic Clinton triangulation, probably coming out on Friday.H.Clinton: "I knew Romney was right about Russia, but it wasn't my place to defy my President as Secretary of State."

Yeah, supplying weapons and lunatics crazy enough to fight our enemy has worked so well in Afghanistan, let's do that again!

Ukrainians are a modern, western, civilized people. Arming them is quite different than arming religious fanatics looking to recreate the middle ages.

And besides, it did work. The Russian military suffered over 14,000 killed in Afghanistan and over 53,000 wounded. The Russians experienced actual battlefield military defeat. Not the political defeat the US is experiencing.

Yeah, supplying weapons and lunatics crazy enough to fight our enemy has worked so well in Afghanistan, let's do that again!

Most Ukrainians are secular, and those who are religious are mostly Christians. I don't see much parallel at all to Afghanistan and the things that went wrong after we double-crossed them.

Also, we wouldn't economically abandon Ukraine afterwards; all of Europe already have trade ties, and nobody is against trading with them or investing there, post-war. Heck, I've got sunflower oil from Ukraine in my kitchen right now. Afghanistan went sideways because we promised them they could be in the modern family of nations if they drove out the Russians, and that was a lie. They were abandoned to their mud huts.

Arming Afghanistan wasn't the problem. Arming them in secret (so most of the population had no idea that the USA was spending half a billion dollars a year on helping them fight the USSR and felt abandoned) and then cutting off the money as soon as the USSR pulled out and leaving the country a mess, rather than helping to rebuild schools and so on was the problem.

You read a lot of strange propaganda if you still believe that stuff even 6 months later. You make it sound like their protesters were American paratroopers. A little too much Pravda in your ear, I'd say.

Regardless of how you feel about the protests, there were free, fair, credible, and widely recognized elections after those events. Fail.

The current government of Ukraine is 100% legit by any standard. Russia engages in misdirection, which you follow quite a ways here, but they don't have any actual complaint about the most recent elections, nor have they brought any complaints to the UN Security Council.

Wow that is some pretty powerful Russian propaganda you have been drinking there. Calling normal peaceful Ukranians "fascists"? Check. Calling it a "violent overthrow" despite it not being one? Check. Calling the government "ultra nationalist"? Check. Blaming the US despite them having nothing to do with anything? Check. Russians have a "right to use force"? Check.

Removing elected officials from office because of their corruption is not contrary to the rule of law. And Yanukovich was a corrupt Russian puppet. Eastern Ukraine was not cut off from the vote. That's a lie. Not that it would matter. The winner of the election got 53%. The next highest runner up (and there were a few) got less than 20%. This election was about as clear-cut as they ever get.

As someone else put it, Putin is aspiring to be a Dune character. Or more prosaically, he's learned a lot from watching US corporations and the US government manipulate the news cycle. Do something that will outrage the public, wait for the new furor, pull back a little, wait for the news to move on to some other subject, and try again.

This is something we saw coming, at least since the incident with Crimea. What plans were made for this? Or are they all pretending to be surprised?

I'm sure everybody has both made plans and is pretending to be surprised. That's just politics. Nobody says what they really think.

Does Germany want Russia invading the Ukraine? I'm sure the answer is no. If push comes to shove are they going to put principle above gas prices? Probably not, but we'll see. The downing of the airliner was taken seriously because so many of the dead were EU citizens, but even then it was just sanctions.

Don't be absurd. Unlike Ukraine, the Baltics are NATO and EU countries with stable governments. If Russia invaded, nukes would fly and both sides know it. It's not even a feasible scenario to speculate over.

Once you appear weak, and unwilling to stand for your "red lines", your competition simply won't take you seriously anymore.

Nothing Obama (or the international community for that matter) is willing to do will aver Russia from its course. At this point, the questions to be settled will be around just how much of Ukraine manages to stay independent at all.

While people may have been all pissy about Bush, unilateral wars, and Team America World Police, the fact of the matter is that it was better than the alternative. "America, Fuck Yeah" sure looks better than "America, Fuck No" at this point.

When Great Britain stopped being a world power, and vied for "peace in our time" with Chamberlain, the average UK citizen's standard of living was dramatically affected by the aggression of Germany in WW2.

When the US finally became the world police, drawn into the conflict by the Japanese, and won the war for the allies, and took over the bulk of the military responsibilities of European allies, *that's* when UK citizens living standards went up.

1954 Crimea was given as a "Gift" to Ukraine by Russia/USSR and Nikita Khrushchev (an ethnic Ukrainian) as a symbolic gesture commemorating the 300th anniversary of Crimea becoming part of the Russian empire.1991 Ukraine voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia1994 Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia and the USA to disarm its nuclear arsenal in return for a treaty that guaranteed Russia and USA would come to their aid if they were ever invaded.2010 Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was elected president. He had been a minister of an eastern Ukrainian province. The US and Europe had supported his opponent, and Russia had supported him. Likely both sides illegally influenced the election with money and espionage. In the following years, there is little doubt he ran the country in the ground, he was a terrible president.2014 The Ukrainian parliament voted overwhelmingly to remove him from the presidential office. A poll in April showed his approval rating at 5% This event was likely assisted by the US and Europe and was basically a Coup de'etat. Russia freaked out and had Russian agents already in place in Ukraine start stiring up violent unrest. They've basically been in a state of civil war since. Russia is providing troops and hardware, the west seem a little more reluctant to provide direct support.

Russias primary goals are to keep the strategic port in the black sea open and prevent Ukraine from joining the EU.

Don't forget that before this whole mess, the Ukrainian president was going to the EU hat in hand asking for 15 Billion Euros to pay off debts paid to Russia and to fix its infrastructure. Speaking of which, their infrastructure is in complete shambles. When Russia first took Crimea a couple days later the Russian minister of fiance was bitching about how much is was going to cost to fix Crimea (something like 15 Billion over 3 years).

So by all means, if Russia wants to take over Ukraine an incur the expense of actually fixing Ukraine... excellent, I suspect very quickly the whole thing will be a pyrrhic victory.

Also, while they're expending their military forces trying to keep the Ukrainians from engaging in an insurgency against them, we're going to keep putting the screws to them on the global market, causing their currency to go into an inflationary spiral.

As of right now, the Europeans have been hesitant about criticizing Russia too heavy because of fears about their gas supply. However, I can't imagine the Europeans will say nothing if Russia rolls in the tanks. Possibly we'll start shipping NG to the Europeans to further undercut the Russians? Who knows.

However, now that Russia has banned food imports from the EU and the US. How long before the standard of living starts spiraling downwards? I don't imagine that Putin would starve his own people, but who knows?

In a more conventional war typically the targeted nation's shipping is seized, both flagged vessels and vessels under other flags owned by those from that nation.

If I remember right, there's a treaty in place that was the result of Ukraine's voluntary handover of its nuclear weapons where it was supposed to receive defense. I'm curious to see if it'll be invoked.

Actually, the handover of USSR's stockpile of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine wasn't in exchange for defense, but rather in exchange for a promise from Russia that Russia will never use its military weapons to attack or intimidate the Ukraine. (See the Budapest Memorandum, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org] )

Clearly, that agreement has been broken by Russia. Of course, I doubt any powers are going to try to exacerbate the situation by either providing the Ukraine with nuclear weapons or suggesting that Ukraine should acquire nuclear weapons, but based on my understanding of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine is well within its rights to do so now that Russia has breached the agreement.

And for good measure, Ukraine should "sell" its ownership in the Ukrainian section of the gas pipeline to a Nato country and then shut off the flow of gas.

Cutting off the flow of gas would hurt Europe a lot more than it would hurt Russia at this point. Entering the winter with your largest gas supplier no longer providing you with the gas that you use for heating would suck. And as gas is fungible, it doesn't matter to Russia if we stop buying it from them, unless everyone else stops buying it from them - if China doesn't join in with the boycott then it just means that they'll be buying more has from Russia because the price of everyone else's gas will go up.

It will be difficult in the short term but the consequences of being under Russia (Or rather the robber barons that control the failed state that carries the name Russia) are becoming too big to ignore.

China and Russia really are not friends. China's not stupid. They don't want to be dependent on them either.

Russia and China just signed a big longterm gas and oil deal. Any amounts over that, in a scenario where Russia doesn't have other buyers, and China would be able to push the price down as far as they wanted; barely over cost.

Also, China is 9th in the world in natural gas production, and they don't use much; only 5% of their energy usage in 2012.

And they've been working hard to diversify their energy supply. They're not going to stop buying from the countries they just signed trade agreements with. Those are real victories much bigger than a short-term discount. They're also not going to convert factories to a new fuel source just to be supplied by Russia, because Russia is not an honest player; everybody knows, especially the Chinese, that they will raise your prices if you don't act like their puppet. China doesn't like being told what to do. At. All.

And for good measure, Ukraine should "sell" its ownership in the Ukrainian section of the gas pipeline to a Nato country and then shut off the flow of gas.

Cutting off the flow of gas would hurt Europe a lot more than it would hurt Russia at this point. Entering the winter with your largest gas supplier no longer providing you with the gas that you use for heating would suck. And as gas is fungible, it doesn't matter to Russia if we stop buying it from them, unless everyone else stops buying it from them - if China doesn't join in with the boycott then it just means that they'll be buying more has from Russia because the price of everyone else's gas will go up.

No Russian economy depends on this income, it make up a significant part of their entire national GDP, meanwhile Europe has been finding other alternative sources of energy in case Russia would cut of the supply again as they did after the sanction put on them for the invasion of Georgia. And the gas is not fungible, it would take over a year to build new pipelines to other countries, especially China is a long long way away from the gas going to Europe. Russia would be completely and utterly fucked without the gas, in Europe it would just hurt the home owner who has invested in natural gas heating to save money, they would not be saving money anymore.

Well, for the US an open conflict started by China in our bond market, that would naturally leave them frozen out of it. They enjoy buying our bonds, so they'd be cutting their own nose. And as the largest bond holder, they'd be destroying their own investments. Our continued bilateral economic friendliness is a basic requirement for China to get any return on those investments.

When they're the biggest bond holder, attacking the market would risk losing their investment, and for the US, our risk is that we would have to write off a bunch of debt. We'd come out ahead in the long term; they could trash our federal budget for a couple years, but most of the US economy is private and independent of the government.

Also, in the short term the dollar would drop, and China would have increased costs in keeping their currency pegged low against. Likely it would rise. That would lower the value of their giant pot of cash, which would be growing quickly without bond purchases. They would be stuck with shrinking liquid assets where they used to have an increasing investment portfolio.

So, no. The whole situation is an object lesson in not buying somebody's debt if you want them to be your enemy; you'll only be able to afford them as friends. China may not be our "best" friend, but their economic friendliness runs deep. Trillions of dollars deep.

I assume from your absurd statement that you consider invading Afghanistan and Iraq, then replacing their governments, is not "conquering"? Because..... ? Because they installed a new government and then left, sorta, except they still routinely fly drones and air-strike anyone in those countries they see fit, which no truly independent country would tolerate.

Even if you use such a stupid definition of "conquer", you're attacking a straw man. I said invade, not conquer. It's indisputable that America has routinely invaded countries far away from their own borders over and over again. Any regime that boils down to "those who use military force against others gets sanctioned" would result in America being entirely cut off from the world economy for years. That clearly won't happen so this is just another case of American (and to some extent European) hypocrisy at work. Either do it consistently or don't do it at all. Preferably not at all - sanctions are based on the idea that punishing huge swathes of ordinary citizens on both sides will somehow bring about political change. How many people really believe the people are in charge of their governments foreign policies in countries like the USA?

However...A Big Part of the issue was Ukraine wanted to join the EU and NATO, however the Ukrainian president at the time decided to side with Russia while most of the country wanted to be with the EU.

The problem is, another part wanted to join Russia. When you look at their economy, that makes a damn lot of sense. The eastern Ukraine is fully dependent on Russia, if Russia nailed the border shut... well, let's say Detroit would look like everyone's fully employed.

Eh, I'm usually a pacifist when it comes to all the pointless conflicts the US gets involved in, but unopposed military hegemony ruthlessly expanding has a.000 batting average on helping anyone but the elites of the expanding power.

This Russian move represents a serious deterioration of the world unity as we knew it, and is likely to affect most of us, directly or indirectly, and more or less severely. Yes I want to read here the various opinions on this crucial topic, moderated the/. way.

The BBC and many other outlets have published NATO confirmations that at least 1000 Russian soldiers have entered Ukraine in this invasion. This directly contradicts your ludicrous claim, but you already knew that.

And NATO is a guaranteed source of truth, because? Western militaries never ever have faulty intelligence? This is a military organisation that has always been in opposition to Russia. I'm not sure that's a "confirmation" any more than something announced by the separatists is. I don't trust either of them and neither should you. Perhaps Russia is invading. If it's a real invasion then we'll see soon enough.

Anyway, my "ludicrous claim" is simply what western media are reporting, including the BBC. Here's their story [bbc.com]. It leads with "Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko has accused Russia of deploying its troops in the east of his country"... which is exactly what I said the Slashdot story wasn't claiming but should.

You're trying to sidestep the issue: it remains a fact that you wrote that we only have the information coming from Kiev, when in fact plenty of stories quote NATO. Whether NATO is trustworthy or doctored the photos of Russian tanks and troops streaming across the border in many stories like http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/... [nationalpost.com] is completely irrelevant to whether your statement is a lie or not!

"R" that you're quoting is the Russian government propaganda rag. You can actually check them on real events in the world, and then check back in 6 months and see what was the truth. They're full of lies every time. I wouldn't trust them for a baseball score.

Check back in 6 months, compare what they reported on this conflict to what really happened. Because they were reporting the Ukrainian protests as being a bunch of Fascists who, if they had their way, would be building concentration camps for Russian sp

What the fuck are you talking about? This myth that Russia keeps trying to push that there are Nazis in Ukraine is only there to deflect Russian attention away from the fact that Putin's policies mirror Hitler's policies almost to the letter. Ukrainian President was elected by 53% of the vote after overthrowing the former President who was clearly a Russian puppet. Russia is taking by force what it couldn't take through bribes.

No, the current regime of Russia is a text book Nationalist Socialist regime. Russia is currently a text-book Nazi state. So the factions in Russia which are Nazi are not minor. They are the government.

That is typical, always blaming the others. The reason why Bulgaria sucks is not because of Russians. Estonia was a part of the USSR and is way better off. No, the inherent and prevalent corruption is the actual reason. Don't blame Russians, blame yourselves. Besides, being on the wrong side in both WW1 and WW2 also was kind of a stupid decision, don't you think?Although, you probably don't, since you seem to consider Russians subhuman, just as Hitler did.